Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 15040
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
Ganaga – Appellant
Versus
Vijayakumar – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition|CRP.No.674 of 2026|First Appeal|A.S.No.1 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Natarajan
The Court held that allegations of fraud and non-payment after a settlement require factual adjudication through a separate civil suit.
Headnote:The case involves a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 against an award passed by Lok Adalat. The petitioners sought partition and were awarded a share, but later claimed non-payment in a compromise settlement. The Court concluded that allegations of fraud require substantive evidence and dismissed the petition, advising the petitioners to file a civil suit. The final outcome was a dismissal of the petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of fraud post-compromise. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. issues necessitate factual adjudication. (Para 4 , 5) |
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.
2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed O.S.No.76 of 2012 seeking partition and separate possession of their mother’s estate. The Trial Court decreed the suit, negativing the defence set up by the defendant (since deceased), and passed a preliminary decree declaring 3/4th share in favour of the Petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred A.S. No.1 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional District Court, Tindivanam. Pending the appeal, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and an Award came to be passed in LAC No. 657 of 2019 dated
28.11.2019, recording settlement between the parties.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the brother of the defendant had induced them to enter into the compromise on the promise of payment of certain sums of money in lieu of their relinquishing their share. According to the petitioners, after signing the compromise, the said promise was not honoured and the amounts agreed upon were not paid.
4. The Award of the Lok Adalat having been passed on 28.11.2019, this Court is unable to entertain the present Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The allegations made by the petitioners, including fraud and non-payment of the agreed consideration, are matters which require adjudication on evidence. Whether there was any misrepresentation or default on the part of the respondents after the settlement, as recorded in the Lok Adalat Award, are all questions of fact that necessitate a full-fledged trial.
5.In such view of the matter, this Court does not find the present Civil Revision Petition to be maintainable. It is open to the petitioners to work out their remedies by instituting a separate civil suit in the manner known to law.
6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
